Tag Archives: unions

The Ohio Library Council (OLC) presented its latest Government Relations webcast today at 10:30 a.m. The description, from their web site, is as follows : “Lynda Murray, OLC Director of Government and Legal Services, will provide an overview of the state budget as it relates to public libraries and an update on other issues pending before the state legislature.” You can watch a recording of the entire original presentation here.

The following are notes that I made while watching the presentation, organized according to the piece of legislation that was being discussed. (This blog post is by no means an in-depth discussion or analysis of these pieces of legislation, nor will it include any remotely full explanations of what they actually are or contain; just notes on what Ms. Murray said about them in regards to libraries.) All bill designations/numbers refer to the Ohio state legislature.

The collective bargaining portion applies to all public employees in Ohio including unionized public libraries, except for association libraries.

The rest of SB 5 does not necessarily apply to library employees.

Public library employees are not “civil servants,” so the parts pertaining only to “civil servants” do not apply to public library employees.

The parts about vacation and sick leave minimums do not apply to public library employees.

The part that prohibits employers from paying the employee’s share of OPERS contributions does apply to public library employees.

The part about performance-based pay (rather than automatic step increases) does apply to public library employees.

Apparently there is an effort to move language about performance-based pay into the budget bill, so it will not be subject to voter referendum in November. However, as far as OLC is aware, that effort only pertains to school employees, not all public employees.

June 30th is the deadline for submission of signatures needed to get SB 5 on the ballot in November (voter referendum). So far, over 700,000 signatures have been collected, which is quite a few more than the 231,000 needed. If the signatures are certified, SB 5 goes on the ballot and cannot go into effect until after that election (and only then, if it is upheld by the voters). The campaign regarding SB 5 is expected to be a very big deal.

OLC has no formal position on SB 5 except to raise concerns about the potential loss of local control for public libraries.

There has been controversy over a proposal in the budget bill to shift the contribution percentages of employee/employer from the current 10/14 to 12/12. It has been argued that doing this could result in insolvency : e.g., if an employee leaves a system prior to retirement and takes their contributions with them (such as cashing out), that share is now larger, whereas the employer’s contributions stay put.

As of right now, the language for moving to a 12/12 split has been removed from the budget. New research is wanted in this area, so the idea is “on hold” for the time being.

This is to nix the practice of people “retiring” from a high-salaried public service job and then getting rehired in another public service job (or “double-dipping” basically), by making the practice undesirable for all involved.

This could have possible impact on libraries that might wish to hire already-retired individuals for whatever reason.

A recent Quinnippiac University poll, conducted ofOhio voters from May 10-16, has shed some light on voters’ current feelings about Ohio SB 5 (the law passed March 31 to limit collective bargaining for public employees).

As though we didn’t know this was a hot topic already, at the time of this writing, there are over 100+ comments on each of those articles. However, I admit I did not subject myself to actually reading them…

According to the survey results, 54% of those surveyed think that SB 5 should be repealed; 36% apparently support it. (What happened to the other 10%?) It should come as no surprise that Democrats and Independents apparently favor repeal of SB 5 more often than Republicans do.

The survey also broke down various elements of SB 5 and asked people’s opinions on those elements individually. Here are some examples of those findings:

Most respondents felt that SB 5 was not needed in order to balance the state budget. (I agree with that: call it what it is; it’s a union-busting bill.)

Most respondents thought public employees should pay at least 15% of their health insurance premiums. (I agree with that too; I figured up how much my husband and I pay for ours, and it is way over 15%. Seems fair to me.)

More people opposed “eliminating seniority as the sole factor in layoffs.” So, I take this to mean that more people think seniority should be the sole factor in layoffs. I disagree with that statement, based on the use of the word “sole.” I think it’s ridiculously unfair that some people would be safe from layoffs simply because they have been there the longest. Let the best man (or woman) win!

Most people supported merit-based pay raises, instead of automatic increases based on length of service. I completely agree. Those who are doing the best job should be rewarded.

(In the above examples, I used the term “most” to mean “more than 50%” simply to avoid having to write a whole bunch of wordy, awkward statements. If you want the exact percentages, check out the original poll data or one of the two articles listed above.)

There are several other stats reported in the articles and in the original survey data. I’ve only mentioned a few here that were of the most interest to me. (The survey also included items calculating the governor’s approval rating, and I’m not touching that one!)

Please note: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily represent opinions held by my employer or by my public employee union. (That’s right, I’m a union member.)Please see original data, and form your own opinions.

So you’ve probably heard by now that Ohio SB 5 did pass. Governor John Kasich signed the union-limiting bill into law on March 31st. The unions are promising to challenge the law by taking it to the voters through referendum. And so the fight continues.

One of the later amendments to the bill that did make it into the final version is that among other various things, the law prevents unions from charging a “fair share fee” to non-members but still requires the union to represent them. For those not familiar with how this works: union members must pay dues—ours at the Dayton Metro Library are something like 1.5% of gross pay—which go towards for union activities, paying the lawyer when needed, etc. Union “members” get to vote. Those who “choose” not to be members (and you’ll see why I use quotation marks here in a minute) must pay a “fair share fee” that is equivalent to normal union dues. Non-members cannot vote in the union (e.g., on contract proposals, etc.), but they are still bound by the same rules that govern regular union members, since they are a part of the body of employees covered by the union. Are you still with me so far?

So let’s review: union members pay “dues” of $X and get to vote; non-members pay a “fair share fee” of $X and do not get to vote. All of these people are represented by the union (i.e., bound by the union contract), and have the same amount of money taken out of their paycheck; the only difference is whether or not the person has a say in the terms of that contract (i.e., the right to vote any time there’s anything to vote on). So as I’ve always understood it, there was never any real , logical reason to not be a “member” of the union. I believe out of 250+ employees who are covered by our union, there are about 8 who are “fair share members”. Maybe these people are philosophically opposed to unions, or maybe they think their “non-membership” makes a bigger difference than it actually does. I really don’t know.

But now, after SB 5 has passed, there will be an actual, real difference between being a member or non-member of the union — and for a beginning librarian at Dayton Metro Library, it’s about $40/month (almost $500/year). Under the new provisions enacted by SB 5’s passage, unions can no longer charge a “fair share fee” to non-members, but they are still required to represent those non-dues-paying non-members.

Will this weaken unions? Almost certainly. Why? Because the people (public employees) will vote with their wallets. I’m not saying all of them will suddenly drop their union memberships; I’m also not advocating whether they should or shouldn’t. I’m just saying it should only be expected that some of them will. Why? Because now people will have an actual choice of whether to be a union member/non-member. Not like before when it was “do you want to be a union member and have $20 taken out of your check every 2 weeks? or would you rather be a non-member and have $20 taken out of your check every 2 weeks?” People are going to weigh the value they see in the union versus the value they see in that extra $20+ every two weeks. And some people are going to take the money and run.

SB 5 opponents must gather more than 231,000 signatures in 90 days in order to force a voter referendum on the November ballot, in an attempt to repeal the law. If the signatures are gathered, the law cannot go into effect until after the November election takes place. However, I can’t seem to find anything anywhere that says when the law would go into effect if there are no enough signatures gathered for a referendum. Perhaps the media just assumes there will be plenty of signatures so doesn’t feel it necessary to bother telling us when this would take effect “otherwise”.

Edit: Ah, okay, here we go: Here’s the status report of legislation for SB 5 on the Ohio government web site. It obviously hasn’t been updated yet since the governor signed on Thursday, but at some point there ought to be some data in the “effective date” field.

Governor Kasich released his recommendations for the Ohio state biennial budget last week. Here’s a summary article from the Columbus Dispatch. Kasich is recommending a 5% funding cut for public libraries, and apparently that is a much better deal than libraries were expecting from Kasich. Lynda Murray of the Ohio Library Council gave another webcast about the budget last week, which had lots of useful info for anyone interested in the current state of public library funding in Ohio. Apparently, some were expecting cuts of 15-50%, forced consolidations, and a new formula for the Public Library Fund distributions – and evidently, Kasich has not called for any of that. Of course, the show’s not over yet. These are just the governor’s “recommendations.” The Ohio House and Senate still have until the end of June to duke it out over the details, so we’re not out of the woods yet.

Murray reminded everyone to be as non-partisan as possible, since public libraries are traditionally supported by both Republicans and Democrats in various ways. “We’re Switzerland,” she said. 🙂

Kasich did propose some changes to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) that could be problematic, according to this OPERS blog post. Kasich proposes that instead of the 10/14 split currently in effect (employee contributes 10%, employer contributes 14%), to change it to an even 12/12. This is a problem because it causes two bits of Ohio law work against each other: state pension funds must be able to pay their “unfunded liabilities” within 30 years; but employee contributions can only be put towards that employee’s pension, while this “unfunded liabilities” bit is one of the things covered by the employers’ contributions. So if the employee’s part is increased and the employer part is decreased, that extends the timeline necessary to cover the “unfunded liabilities.” (If I’m understanding this correctly, I guess you could think of it like a car loan – if you start making smaller payments, it’s going to take longer to pay off.) So anyway – don’t know how they’re going to handle that, but it sounds like something’s got to give (either the proposal or the law) in order for it to legally work out.

I haven’t heard much about SB 5 (the collective bargaining bill) lately. I suppose all this business with Japanese earthquake and Libyan civil war is making the collective bargaining disputes look like small potatoes to the media outlets – as it probably should! but nonetheless the media hysteria has died down a bit. I think the hearings are still going on in Ohio; I’m sure we’ll hear more when the thing either passes or fails. I know we haven’t heard the last of SB 5.

It’s shaping up to be a very interesting week, involving many a long and winding road…

Yesterday, the Ohio Senate passed SB 5 (with some amendments to its original version) by a margin of just 1 vote (17-16). (If you want to see exactly how it all went down yesterday in the Ohio Senate – including who voted for what – check out the Ohio Senate Journal for Mar. 2, 2011.).

So now SB 5 is on its way to discussions in the Ohio House. According to the Columbus Dispatch: “If the bill passes the House, Gov. John Kasich said he will sign it. After that, Democrats and union leaders anticipate going to the ballot to ask Ohioans to overturn it.” So it should be a long and winding road before we know what the real end result of all of this will be.

I suppose that could explain the last line of today’s Ohio Library Council email regarding the legislation: “When the final version of the legislation is passed, we will provide a complete and thorough legal review of the Bill and how it impacts public libraries.” I guess I can’t really blame them for not wanting to do too much in-depth analysis until the thing is actually in its final form, since any or all of it could always be revised (or fail entirely). Then again, on the other hand, through all of this, I would have really appreciated some more in-depth analysis about all of it – what exactly does all of this mean, for me, in plain English? I’m sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that all public employee union members should automatically think every word of this bill is evil. I’m going to need a little more in the “how does this affect me, really?” category. Anyway, moving on… Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Also yesterday: My federally-employed husband and I were glad to learn that another continuing resolution was passed for the federal budget, and Obama signed it. So government shut-down has been averted for another two weeks. Now if those guys in Washington could only agree on enough stuff to pass a real one for the rest of the year and then maybe, I don’t know, get started on the budget they need to pass before October, so we don’t have a repeat of this past fiscal year…that would be great.

(There’s an interesting poll going on at FedSmith.com right now as to whether a government shutdown is expected and whether the employees will get paid anyway. The results are showing that readers expect a shutdown but think that employees will get paid anyway; however, I would be hesitant to make my bets on anything right now!)

I never meant for this blog to have so many entries about legislation, but there’s just so much crazy stuff going on right now in that area, that affects my profession, that it’s hard not to get sucked into camping the news sites for the latest updates…and then wanting to talk about them here.

But enough on that for now. The other “long and winding road” in my life this week is a road trip to Bloomington, Indiana, for a conference. (Okay – I don’t know that the road will be “winding” – I’ve never been there – or even that you could really call it all that “long” – it’s about 160 miles, mostly interstate, and should take about 3 hours. But…anyway.)

IU Libraries’ Preservation Lab has a pretty awesome online repair/enclosure preservation manual that I reference a lot in my work, also. As a matter of fact, part of the conference includes a 2-hour workshop on paper conservation, and I’m really looking forward to that. (Actually, the conservation workshop and the $30 registration fee were pretty much what sold me on this conference. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the sessions and tours, too, though!)

So, stay tuned for updates… I’m sure I’ll be blogging about the conference – probably from my hotel room. (Actually the conference itself has a blog, too.) And you know I’ll have more to say as the details of the whole SB 5 thing are further hammered out… Oh, and let’s not forget the upcoming state budget release (which will probably be scary) and this summer’s upcoming union contract negotiation at my library (the last one – in ’08 – dragged on for months, and that was before things even got bad!).

Today I read this Columbus Dispatch article about the latest chapter in the saga of Ohio SB 5. Apparently, now they are talking about not eliminating state workers’ bargaining rights completely, but they could only bargain for wages, and SB 5 would now “prohibit all public workers from striking.” Again, I’m often unclear on which groups they are referring to when they talk about this bill, since part of it covers “state government workers” and some of it covers “local government workers”. But I guess the use of the word “all” should be pretty clear.

I’m not exactly clear on how this would actually affect workers at my library. We already have the following article in effect in our collecting bargaining agreement:

ARTICLE 57: NO STRIKE-NO LOCKOUT

A. During the term of the Agreement, there shall be no lockout, no strike, no sympathy strike, no concerted action in failing to report to duty, no failure to report to duty, no willful absence from a bargaining unit member’s position, no stoppage of work, no slow down or absence in whole or part from the full, faithful and proper performance of duties of employment. Any employee violating the provisions of this Article may be disciplined.

B. The Union and the Library agree that they shall at all times cooperate to see that operations are continued in a normal manner and shall actively discourage and endeavor to prevent or terminate any violations of the Article. In the event of any violation of this Article, the Union agrees it will immediately take all affirmative steps with the employees involved to correct the violation and to bring about an immediate resumption of the operations of the Dayton Metro Library.

C. The no strike provisions of this Article shall not apply to any interim negotiations conducted in accordance with any provision of this Agreement. With respect to such negotiations, employees shall have the right to strike in accordance with Chapter 4117 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Maybe this new revision to SB 5 would remove even the limited “right to strike” discussed in Article 57, paragraph C? I really don’t know. (Wouldn’t it be nice if these legal-ese things were written in plain English?)

In any event, I have always thought the interplay between the fact that we bother having a union and the fact that Article 57 even exists…was a little strange. Let me be clear: I’m not saying that I want to strike or necessarily that I think we “should” have the right to strike or anything like that. I’m just saying, I always thought that striking was the main recourse that unions were supposed to have: you force everyone to be in a union; if conditions become “intolerable” (in the union’s eyes), the union strikes; this shuts down the organization and is supposed to force a negotiation.

Again, let me be clear: I’m not saying that public workers should be allowed to do that. But I have always thought it was strange that a place would bother to have a union but that it would be one unable to strike.

In the article I referenced above, Ohio Senate minority leader Capri Cafaro, D-Hubbard, called the changes to SB 5 “window dressing” and elaborated further: “You can’t sort of half do (collective bargaining). You can’t say, ‘You can collective bargain but, oh by the way, you can’t strike’.” That’s kind of what I was thinking. But then again, what do I know?

It seems like I only just heard about Ohio SB 5 (collective bargaining unit reforms) last week—oh wait, that was just last week—but it’s already starting to get really ugly.

I’ve been seeing a lot about it on Facebook — mostly teacher (and librarian) friends, who are obviously posting to decry the bill. I can understand the desire to protect their jobs and benefits.

But just because the unions — and yes, I’m a member of a public employees union — are telling everybody “hey this is evil,” that doesn’t mean I automatically follow that standpoint blindly. I’d like to know what the heck this bill will really do. (Yes, I know I posted a link to the bill above, but I’d like an explanation in plain English, please.)

Anyhow… Last night, I finally found a couple of articles that actually do a halfway decent job of listing some of the things that this bill would actually do. Joe Guillen’s article from the Plain Dealer(this is actually from last week) gives a few short bullets at the end of it; that was helpful, for a start.

I was glad that Siegel clarified that the bill distinguishes between state employees and local public employees. That wasn’t clear to me before I read his article. SB 5 would eliminate collective bargaining units (unions) for all state public employees – which I understand to be the portion that includes teachers (correct me if I’m wrong!).

However, for local government public employees – which, as I understand it, would be the librarians, firemen, policemen, etc. (again, correct me if I’m wrong on this, please!) – SB 5 makes a lot of changes to the ways those unions can bargain but does not call for their complete elimination. (Siegel includes a lengthy bullet list for the changes the bill would make to local workers’ unions.)

I will probably be stoned by my co-workers for admitting this, but there were some things in the article that I agreed with, regarding what the bill proposes to do. I’m not necessarily saying that it’s 100% right or that it should be supported in its current form. But I definitely agree with some of the propositions, such as (quoted directly from Siegel’s article):

Local: “No longer makes longevity a deciding factor when management is deciding to make layoffs.” If you’ve been there a long time and you’re the best, then great. But I don’t think “seniority” (i.e. managing not to get fired for more years than everyone else) should hold as much weight as it does.

State: “Requires the Department of Administrative Services to develop a merit-based system of pay.” Can we get some of that over on the local employees side? As Sen. Jones (aka the “villain” in this situation, or one of) put it so wonderfully in Siegel’s article: “I don’t think that everybody, by virtue of showing up every day, should be entitled to the same increase in salary.” I couldn’t agree more.

Local: “Removes health insurance from collective bargaining. Management will pick insurance policies, and employees must cover at least 20 percent of the cost.” Okay, I don’t necessarily care about this one – I admit, I have my husband’s insurance. BUT, before I opened my mouth, I did a calculation based on information from his pay stub, and I see that we pay 25% of the cost of our insurance premium. What’s so wrong with that? [Edit: Since writing this initially, I dug up the numbers on health insurance premiums at the library where I work: the employee pays only 8%. Note: Both of these stats were based on family coverage. /end edit]

Local: “Requires a public employer to publish on its website any changes in the union contract that impacts compensation of workers, including wages, length of service payments, and insurance coverage.” What’s so wrong with this? That should all be public record anyway. I think we should be held accountable and be open with that information – and not require people to file a bunch of paperwork in order to get it.

I’m not saying I agree with everything, or that I think all of that should be accomplished by a law. I’m just saying I don’t think all of the proposals are completely unreasonable. I’m sure the unions will let us all know how our management would twist these otherwise-not-completely-offensive proposals around to screw us.